HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » FACT CHECK: Presidential ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:05 PM

FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps

Source: AP-Excite

By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney spun one-sided stories in their first presidential debate, not necessarily bogus, but not the whole truth.

Here's a look at some of their claims and how they stack up with the facts:

OBAMA: "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue."

THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 billion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those "cuts" away and Obama's $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20121004/DA1MFGTO0.html




John Rossitto watches the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney from a restaurant in San Diego, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)

38 replies, 8185 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps (Original post)
Omaha Steve Oct 2012 OP
magic59 Oct 2012 #1
Submariner Oct 2012 #3
otohara Oct 2012 #6
goclark Oct 2012 #26
Xipe Totec Oct 2012 #24
leftynyc Oct 2012 #27
flamingdem Oct 2012 #33
leftynyc Oct 2012 #35
defacto7 Oct 2012 #4
Scairp Oct 2012 #9
flamingdem Oct 2012 #34
PossumSqueezins Oct 2012 #13
Tigress DEM Oct 2012 #2
triplepoint Oct 2012 #5
Tigress DEM Oct 2012 #7
LaydeeBug Oct 2012 #8
triplepoint Oct 2012 #10
LaydeeBug Oct 2012 #37
triplepoint Oct 2012 #38
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #12
marble falls Oct 2012 #25
LaydeeBug Oct 2012 #36
pampango Oct 2012 #19
PatrynXX Oct 2012 #11
DallasNE Oct 2012 #14
glinda Oct 2012 #15
Cowpunk Oct 2012 #16
DallasNE Oct 2012 #17
Scairp Oct 2012 #18
sendero Oct 2012 #20
okieinpain Oct 2012 #21
sendero Oct 2012 #23
bucolic_frolic Oct 2012 #22
goclark Oct 2012 #29
hockeynut57 Oct 2012 #30
julian09 Oct 2012 #32
rtracey Oct 2012 #28
MatthewStLouis Oct 2012 #31

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:10 PM

1. This is the eye of the tiger moment for the president

 

Like the rocky movies where the champ gets complacent and gets his ass beat, the president needs to get back the eye of the tiger before he gets back into the ring with Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magic59 (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:20 PM

3. One can't be the eye of the tiger

when the opponent flippy flops from day to day like romney did again tonight. The Mittster may have won on speaking fast and interrupting Lehrer, but lied his ass off again and again. Obama won on honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Submariner (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:38 PM

6. It Was Opposite Mitt Night

Every thing I heard for the last 18 months about Willard, was denied by Mitt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 09:29 AM

26. He was MittNIO with his flip flops/ lies

last night - his nose was growing longer each time his lips
moved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Submariner (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:58 AM

24. It may not be the eye of the tiger, But Romney is the tiger of the lies nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Submariner (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 09:32 AM

27. Pres Obama needs to POUND him on

the flip flops. A comment in line with "I had to prepare to debate a dozen different people because I had no idea which Mitt was going to show up" and then list each flip flop...again, and again and again. Repetition works with the less informed among us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:31 AM

33. You contradicted yourself here

Those who are less informed don't keep track of all of Rmoney's lies so that doesn't score a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:49 AM

35. No - most undecided people are just starting to

tune in to the election (I consider anyone who is still undecided as being less informed).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magic59 (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:31 PM

4. Didn't I hear this in your post in the other thread?

cut and paste?

I disagree that Obama was complacent and got his ass kicked if that's what you are referring to again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:42 PM

9. I very much disagree as well

I thought he did good, considering what a condescending douchbag Romney is. He couldn't very much stoop to name calling. He got in some really points about what a hypocrite Romney is about health care reform and all Mittens could do was deny his plan was anything at all like Obama's health care plan. Lame. He is a douchbag and came across as such. Don't forget folks, they will be doing this two more times so it's not as if this is their one and only confrontation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:32 AM

34. agree, he proved douchiness and wasn't presidential nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magic59 (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:08 AM

13. Yeah, Romney scores big

for being shrill and fitting in the most lies into two minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:20 PM

2. Fact Checker is full of **it.

BECAUSE of the HUGE deficit, any money we do NOT have to borrow decreases our spending.... on INTEREST since we can't even TOUCH the principal yet.

WHAT does the fact checker THINK we pay back the INTEREST on those LOANS with - tinker toys? Pop tarts? CASHOLA, baby, out of pocket.


OBAMA: It's important "that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."

THE FACTS: This oft-repeated claim is based on a fiscal fiction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for mostly with borrowed money, so stopping them doesn't create a new pool of available cash that can be used for something else, like rebuilding America. It just slows down the government's borrowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tigress DEM (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:33 PM

5. Forty Cents of EVERY Dollar That the Federal Govt. Spends is BORROWED MONEY

 

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:01 PM - Edit history (2)

So, if it costs USD$2B/week (approximately) to fund the "war" in Afghanistan, then USD$800M of that is borrowed (not solely from one source) money. If it has been a constant USD$2B/week for 11 years, and I don't believe it has, that's a grand total of


USD$1144B

Grand Total of Borrowed Money to fund our misadventure in Afghanistan: USD$457.6B
Note: This money was not solely borrowed from one source by the way. It comes from a variety of funders. To see this, check out the info at this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/15/us-debt-how-big-who-owns
(note from the info here: We owe about the same to both China and Japan!)

or this chart:




Do the math and the net research. I have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:40 PM

7. Right, so anything we can do to lower that amount DOES lessen our spending.

Rethugs have this idea that actually PAYING bills is the bad thing, the illegal thing to do.

When you lessen a loan amount and continue the same payment structure, the additional amount goes toward principal, lessening the overall amount even more. It's how homeowners get more equity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:42 PM

8. Forty Cents of EVERY Dollar That the Federal Govt. Spends is BORROWED MONEY...from CHINA

which is exactly why we cannot sustain these ridiculous handouts to corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:54 PM

10. wrongo

 

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

We don't owe it ALL to China as you claim. Take a look at this graph, and you'll see:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/15/us-debt-how-big-who-owns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:16 PM

37. I'm sorry WHO has the largest portion? WHO is splitting hairs? please. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:24 PM

38. Say What?

 

Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2012, 03:42 AM - Edit history (4)

Are you unable to comprehend the information I supplied within my post? Obviously, you are still interested in saying something about it. What part didn't you understand? You do understand the pie chart I supplied don't you? Where's your disconnect/misunderstanding with the information contained within my post? I'd be happy to supply you with plenty more if need be that fully explains and documents that China is not who we owe all the money to. The list of debt owners is detailed clearly in what I supplied in my post though. Please let me know if you STILL don't understand it. I'm not trying to cut anyone down here. Just trying to clarify that no, I'm not "splitting hairs" here. I'm explaining and showing you that no, China is not who we borrowed most of the money from. They account for 1/4 of the borrowed money. There is STILL 3/4 of the debt to account for. Japan is owed nearly as much as China is. Then, there is STILL half of the debt to account for, and a bevy of countries and organizations owed repayment of it. Let me know if you'd like me to do anymore calculations to further illustrate the point of my original post.


Just to be clear here:

You originally claimed that we owed just China.

Your Post had this title:
"Forty Cents of EVERY Dollar That the Federal Govt. Spends is BORROWED MONEY...from CHINA"

With information supplied from a few websites, I've explained to you that you are mistaken about this...though not as politely as I could/should have...and I apologize for that. Just the same, I've explained to you that the borrowed money came from a collection of countries and organizations. I've included a pie graph and a link in my post to support this claim. So, if you have any confusion with this, please do let me know. We'll figure something out for a better explanation after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:06 AM

12. No. The government borrows from all kinds of people including other governments

and from the huge Social Security Trust Fund.

Do you have a link that proves we borrow that much from China.

Isn't the truth that China buys our dollars in order to keep our dollar worth a lot more than it should be in relationship with the Chinese Yuan?

Isn't that the very currency manipulation the China does and that Romney himself complains about?

The dollar is a trusted investment. That's why foreigners love to buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 09:05 AM

25. And there's a hidden threat to it also, especially to the Chinese - fuck with the dollar, fuck ....

your own wealth, too. Remember what the Wiemar Republic did to the world economy when Germany turned on the printing presses to pay their debts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:15 PM

36. and they ALSO borrow FROM CHINA. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 05:51 AM

19. Krugman: lots of people keep getting this wrong; it's the last thing we need to worry about.

Fear-of-China Syndrome

Ah. Letís give thanks to Rob Portman, who offered a nice break from all the lies in Tampa, and instead offered us some good old-fashioned bad macroeconomics. Obama wonít take on China, Portman said, because

Obama could not run up his record trillion dollar deficits if the Chinese did not buy our bonds to finance them.



How is it possible that weíre borrowing much less from foreigners when the government deficit has gone up so much? The answer is that the private sector is deleveraging, having moved into massive surplus as consumers try to pay down debt and corporations hold back on investment in the face of weak consumer demand. All those government deficits have only partly offset this move, so that overall national borrowing from overseas is down, not up.

So whoís actually financing the US budget deficit? The US private sector. We donít need Chinese bond purchases, and if anything weíre the ones with the power, since we donít need their money and they have a lot to lose. In fact, we donít want them to buy our bonds; better to have a weaker dollar (a point that the Japanese actually get.)

To make excuses for Portman, lots of people keep getting this wrong, even after all these years. But really, truly, the last thing we need to worry about is whether the Chinese love our bonds.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/fear-of-china-syndrome/

Thanks to Mr. Krugman for calling out another republican liar playing the be-very-afraid-of-China (one of the right's favorite 'thems') card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:00 AM

11. debates used to be fun to watch but until bush stole the election

they don't seem to matter. and huffpo is all over themselves saying Mitt won the night because Obama has a record and Mitt doesn't? o_O like hell. His is longer than Obama's. X_X. like okay Huffpo is a blog using other sources...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:36 AM

14. Romney To Jim Leher (sp) "I Like You Too"

Condesending and reminded me of Obama telling Hillary Clinton "You're plenty likeable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #14)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:57 AM

15. More like "I like to fire people".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 01:12 AM

16. This lousy fact check is all about the phony "balance"

Let's look at some of the president's supposed missteps:

OBAMA: It's important "that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."

THE FACTS: This oft-repeated claim is based on a fiscal fiction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for mostly with borrowed money, so stopping them doesn't create a new pool of available cash that can be used for something else, like rebuilding America. It just slows down the government's borrowing.


Really? It's a "fiscal fiction" that ending the wars will cost less than continuing them?

OBAMA: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut - on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that's another trillion dollars - and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign."

THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.

Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.

However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.

The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay for the lower rates.


I don't see how these FACTS in any way dispute what Obama said about Romney's tax plan. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cowpunk (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 01:41 AM

17. The Fact Checker Also Left Out

That Romney would eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains plus cut business taxes. Factor these in with the unspecified tax credits, deductions and exemptions and it makes Obama's statement complete true. Interesting how the fact checker made the very mistake they accused Obama of making. Also, when Romney talks about raising the same amount of money he uses fuzzy math because he includes expected growth to replace the revenue shortfall and make it revenue neutral. I don't see where that growth comes from either because Romney slashes spending, reducing aggregate demand and creating negative growth. In other words, creating another recession. Here the fact checker doesn't even consider this possibility, buying Romney's smoke and mirrors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 01:42 AM

18. I think Obama is biding his time

He gets to do this two more times folks. He could be saving the best for last. I happen to think he's going to let him have it big time during debate number three. Anyone know who is moderator for the remaining two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 07:25 AM

20. Nope...

.... Obama got thrown off his game when Romney switched his policies, in one fell swoop at the moment of the debate, from Ryan to Obama-lite.

But that is a trick that can only be done once.

I thought Obama looked nervous, the first time I have ever seen him look nervous in a debate or speech. I think that Romney's left-field surprise caught him completely off guard and put him in the position of having to improvise more than he had planned.

I thought Romney's smug demeanor was disgusting. I'm praying that lying fucktard weasel gets his ass beat next month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:20 AM

21. I totally agree with you. I don't think president obama

was bad, he was just kind of blah. I think he missed a lot of opportunities to kick mitts ass and let him get away with telling really big lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:34 AM

23. Obama "lost" the debate..

... only if you believe that the truth is irrelevant.

I think Obama will do better next time. I don't think he did terribly here, but he was not at his best IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:26 AM

22. President Obama Did The Right Thing

He let Mitt lie, and didn't get drawn into arguments. You can't argue
with a narcissistic liar like the Mitt Romney campaign. It becomes
he said, you said. You let Mitt carry the day, which will encourage
Mitt to tell more lies. You expose Mitt to the fact-checkers.

So I don't think Obama had a bad night, I think it is part of a
deliberate strategy to unsettle the opposition, and to define
the debate. Mitt went for a fight. Obama was presidential.
This will pay dividends. Everyone wants a TKO. It's only
Round One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 09:38 AM

29. When is the Biden Debate?


I think that Biden will play " Bad Cop" and force Lyryan
to disagree with Rmoney's "reach across the aisle" crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:16 AM

30. yes

kinda like "giving him enough rope"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:11 AM

32. Not Obama's best performance, hardly as bad as some say.

 

I watched it a second time, after all the critics had their say, Obama had a lot of facts on the peoples side.
Sure he didn't mention a lot of things, Bain, obstruction, the 47% of poepl Rmoney discarded, Ryan's plan also cuts $714 from medicare, but uses it for tax relief for the rich, etc. Nothing changed those issues are still there. If people would watch debate again and listened to Obama on the issues, he did well, though he left a lot on the table. MYTH Romney took off the table all that he was running the whole campaign, 20% across the board tax cuts, resulting in $5 trillion hole throwing Obama off.
What he has to do next time is bring up all the obstruction, that is responsible for Obama's record. The dems had many votes over 50 but were defeated because of filibuster of every issue. Rmoney was successful in Mass because the dems worked with him, they didn't have a meeting vowing to obstruct every issue.


The Obama of last night is also the Obama of the 2010 election, who didn't defend ACA and led to big defeat.
There needs to be a wake up call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 09:36 AM

28. Played to perfection

Many think Romney won this debate, but the opposite happened here last night. Obama played it perfectly. Why? Think of it this way. Romney came out all fired up ready to smack down the President, win over his base. The problem is, he already has his base. Its the middle of the roaders Romney needs, and he didn't win them last night. He now has all new "facts" he needs to use. He can't come back from the "facts" he used last night. His tax plan, his medicare plan, his 12 trillion jobs. All these were changed last night to say something different, and when he tries to come back to the original talking points, Obama catches him in another lie....... Brilliantly Played President Obama, and your team. Watch this next debate, you think Obama is not going to lower the boom....I guarantee he will and Romney will be looking like the deer in the headlights...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:44 AM

31. Did fact checker get a peek at Mitt's crib sheet? /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread